What Makes Dawkins Tick?
by MikeGeneRichard Dawkins once wrote, "All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe "“ almost worship- this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics." (Is Science a Religion? The Humanist 57, no.1)
Yet these words ring hollow. Given that science is constantly turning up new discoveries about the natural world, you would think Dawkins would be in a continual state of ecstasy. However, in an interview with John Crace , we learn that Dawkins has been getting more and more grumpy lately.
When Dawkins was given the chance to use the medium of television to reach the masses, rather than share his spine-shivering, breath-catching awe provided by science, he instead chose to complain about religion in a documentary entitled, The Root of All Evil. It looks like the continued existence of religion has been overshadowing his sense of scientific awe.
Dawkins also has an anti-religious polemic in the pipe-line:
If individual faith is, for Dawkins, an expression of an ignorance, collective faith and organised religion embody something much more pernicious. That is what drove him to make two films for Channel 4, the first of which was shown last night, and to write his new book, The God Delusion, to be published in September.
Why is this Professor for the Public Understand of Science so angry and obsessed with religion when science provides all that he needs in order to experience a fulfilled and ecstatic life (not to mention all the money he gets from his books)? Could it be, as Crace notes, that Dawkins is just "Never one to tolerate fools at the best of times?" Doubtful. There are plenty of fools trying to burn down Oxford University because Oxford wants a new science lab and Dawkins has yet to offer one criticism of those fools. There is something about religion that just pushes this guy's buttons.
Madeleine Bunting writes an insightful critique that gets us close to the source of Dawkins rage and obsession:
There's an underlying anxiety that atheist humanism has failed. Over the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and unmatched) record for violence. Atheist humanism hasn't generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless absorption in passing desires. Not knowing how to answer the big questions of life, we shelve them – we certainly don't develop the awe towards and reverence for the natural world that Dawkins would want. So the atheist humanists have been betrayed by the irrational, credulous nature of human beings; a misanthropy is increasingly evident in Dawkins's anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers.
What thus begins as an argument against God becomes an argument against religion. From here, the argument against religion leads to hostility against religious people. Finally, when it starts to become clear that most people are not going to buy the idea that raising children in a religious tradition is child abuse, and when they are not inspired to immerse themselves continually in science, the atheist begins to lash out at humanity. Humanism becomes misanthropy, hope becomes nihilism. And all of this comes as an expression of an intellectual tantrum.
But maybe Dawkins meltdown is more personal than this. He does, after all, seem to have become a man who is too personally invested in the futile attempt of ridding to the world of religion. Could all his anti-religious, and increasingly anti-human, writings be simply an example of catharsis?
Crace's article notes that Dawkins himself had a religious upbringing:
He didn't start out as an unbeliever. Dawkins was born into a middle-class family that went to church each Christmas. At school, Anglicanism, if not rammed down the throat, was at least a given. "I had my first doubts when I was nine," he recalls, "when I realised there were lots of different religions and they couldn't all be right. However I put my misgivings on hold when I went to Oundle and got confirmed. I only stopped believing when I was about 15."
It is interesting that Dawkins can pinpoint the time in his childhood when he first began to have his doubts about his religion. And for a 9-year-old, young master Dawkins was sure turning out to be quite the philosopher. Then again, maybe this is just the way the mind of a 65-year-old intellectual reaches back to remember his childhood. There is, after all, an odd coincidence at work here, as something else happened to Dawkins when he was nine.
In his article, "Religion's real child abuse," written for Free Inquiry in September, 2002, Dawkins tells us another brief story about himself:
Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the squash court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin master's eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side.
Remember that Dawkins scoffs at the concept of retribution, but laments the fact that he can never attain the ability to shed it.
January 14th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Why? Dawkins argues that an appreciation of the findings of science can take the place of religious belief in providing a sense of awe. This need not logically result in "a continual state of ecstasy" – after all, is this the case for religious belief? I know many religious people from a diverse range of denominations, and none of them (to the best of my knowledge) experience continuous ecstasy, which I imagine would be a fairly debilitating state.
Instead, people with religious beliefs still experience, and lament, the many slings and arrows that life casts their way. Many of them also identify specific alternative social and political belief systems as potential or actual dangers to the way they believe humanity should operate, and engage in activities (e.g. voting, protesting, lobbying) designed to fight against these alternative belief systems. The religious awe presumably experienced by most American Christian fundamentalists, for instance, does not prevent them from engaging in overt political activity. So why should Dawkins' secular sense of awe hinder him from attacking the organised religions that he sees as harmful to humanity?
So in this case, Dawkins' words don't "ring hollow" – with all due respect, the notion that secular awe is incompatible with "grumpiness" or a desire to attack organised religion is a fairly obvious strawman argument.
That said, I think Madeleine Bunting is close to the mark in her analysis of the reasons for Dawkins' grumpiness – there does appear to be a deep sense of frustration amongst "old school" atheist humanists that their vision of secular progress has failed to catch on with the general public. This has pushed Dawkins et al. towards hostile anti-religious ranting that is deeply embarrassing to more moderate, thoughtful atheists – and the cheering from the sycophantic sidelines for every piece of extremist nonsense Dawkins utters just makes things worse.
Mesk.
Comment by Mesk — January 14, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
January 14th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Hi Mike,
I like your hamstringing of Dawkins, but you should keep in mind that his particularly brighter-than-thou attitude isn't shared by all secular humanists. I would consider myself a secular humanist, and I take exception to Madeleine Bunting's blanket criticism of non-theists. So, if you're going to broaden your criticism against the atheistic equivalence of Pat Robertson, do it by wondering about the community that gave this misantrope such a big voice in the first place.
Comment by Krauze — January 14, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
January 14th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Mesk,
I confess to using hyperbole, but my main focus is on Dawkins and why he has become so obsessed with attacking religion. I have no doubt that many secular people would not think Dawkins' words ring hollow, but I think that in Dawkins case, they do ring hollow. Given his level of obsession against religion, the cynic in me cannot help but notice that his praise for scientific discovery is couple with a dig against religion. In other words, it looks like he is just trying to score yet another point against religion and I must wonder about the sincerity of his awe. Thus, it doesn't help my cynical outlook when the man is given the opportunity to use the powerful medium of television to reach the masses and opts to attack religion rather than awe them with the discoveries of science.
Krauze,
I certainly understand that Dawkins is not representative of all secular humanists. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if we can accurately describe Dawkins as a humanist.
Comment by MikeGene — January 14, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Dawkins was physically molested as a child by a religious leader? No wonder he's so viciously against religion: Why did God, if He exists, allow him to be molested? He is lashing out at God as an act of retribution, it appears to me. Of course, this casts doubt on ALL his supposedly scientific and objective pontifications on science and religion.
Comment by Douglas — January 15, 2006 @ 2:31 am
January 15th, 2006 at 10:59 am
MikeGene, is Dawkins becoming the pope of all atheists?
Comment by Benji — January 15, 2006 @ 10:59 am
January 15th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Mike writes:
I've often thought the same thing. A vague memory, but wasn't there a book out some time in the last, oh, 5-10 years that looked at the relationship that several prominent athiests had with their fathers and in nearly every case it was a dysfuncitonal relationship? Does anyone recall this book (or perhaps it was an article)?
In any case, I don't pretend to know Dawkins' life history, but from the way he writes about religion in general, and Christianity in particular, there does seem to be a sense of lashing out or getting even. I wonder how Dawkins would have viewed or responded to former Oxford scholar C.S. Lewsi? Would he have called him the same names he uses against religious people today?
Lewis, recall, went from atheism to theism to Christianity. Dawkins' journey seems to be the reverse. Lewis' intellectual brilliance is recognized nearly everywhere. Dawkins' hasn't come close to acheiving that status of recognition nor does he appear likely to. His ranting and raving against Christians and religious people seem hollow indeed when one considers a C.S. Lewis to be on the receiving end of these ad hominem attacks, if only in imagination.
So, yes, it does make one wonder…why? I suspect Douglas's comment might have some truth to it as well. Or, perhaps it is as simple as, somewhere deep down, Dawkins is beginning to suspect that he might actually be wrong and simply has to fight off that suspicion else he knows he'll be in an intellectual pickle. Better to rant and rail harder than begin to express some doubts. In that regard, Anthony Flew was at least much more intellectually honest.
Comment by DonaldM — January 15, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Hey DonaldM,
Are you referring to the book, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, by Paul C. Vitz?
Comment by Dane Parker — January 15, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Mike,
Given your oft-stated aversion to being "psycho-analysed" by your opponents, I've long been puzzled by the attraction you have towards detailed psychoanalysis of one particular extremist atheist. I must admit, I'd much rather be reading a post on the science of front-loading (these have been rather thin on the ground here at TT for a while) than yet another critique of Dawkins – but of course, this isn't my blog.
I guess because I know that sense of awe from personal experience, I'm prepared to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt, and I would strongly argue that his writings on evolutionary biology provide evidence for this view. I still remember a passage from near the beginning of The Extended Phenotype when Dawkins describes his view of evolution, with individual organisms dissolving to reveal a landscape of genes mutating, recombining, competing and co-operating across deep time, and his sense of wonder is palpable and infectious. To me, Dawkins' cynical and hostile view of religion does not make this wonder insincere; the two viewpoints are perfectly compatible.
I agree that this was a deeply unfortunate choice. However, this decision, like all human decisions, no doubt involved a number of complex, interacting factors. We know that Dawkins feels that religion poses a growing threat to science; perhaps he felt that the need to publicise this threat was more pressing than the need to convey the wonders of science and the natural world (which in any case is already being admirably pursued by veterans like Sir David Attenborough). And while I disagree with his decision, which I suspect will prove counter-productive, I can't see how it nullifies in any way his statements about secular awe. Your arguments to the contrary, IMO, are based on the same tenuous psychoanalysis that you have quite rightly derided when it has been focused in your direction by ID critics.
Mesk.
Comment by Mesk — January 15, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Hi Mesk,
"I must admit, I'd much rather be reading a post on the science of front-loading (these have been rather thin on the ground here at TT for a while)"
Not to derail the discussion, but I actually have a post on front-loading in the pipeline. It should be posted sometime tomorrow.
Comment by Krauze — January 15, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Hey Krauze, I don't clearly understand this but, what exactly is front-loading?
Comment by Benji — January 15, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Hey Krauze, I don't clearly understand this but, what exactly is front-loading?
Comment by Benji — January 15, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Can it be applied to ID?
Comment by Benji — January 15, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
January 15th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
dane:
Yes, that's the one. Thanks. An interesting concept, I think.
Comment by DonaldM — January 15, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
January 16th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Mesk,
For me, Dawkins is a good topic for "passing-the-time." He is not some obscure scientist or internet persona "“ he is a celebrity scientist who is using his reputation as a scientist to peddle bigotry. In fact, he's been getting much of an academic free-ride while he prattles on with his misinformation about religion and child-abuse.
Yes, 20 years ago, Dawkins may have experienced some sense of awe from the discoveries that science provides. But it sure looks like that awe has worn off, as Dawkins seems increasingly obsessed with one topic – making rather shrill attacks on religion. I don't view his choice of television topics to be merely unfortunate; I view it as something that is entirely predictable (back on ARN a few years back, I did predict his anti-religious stuff would be getting more interesting).
As for Dawkins viewing religion as a threat to science, it's hard to take that seriously when his own university has to employ masked construction workers surrounded by police protection while they try to build a new science building as the most famous Oxford scientist is out there complaining on tv about "Christian boys and girls."
Bottom line "“ Dawkins is an increasingly interesting character. It's as if he has become bored with explaining evolution for the umpteenth time and animated about ridding the world of religion. I predict he will continue to implode before our eyes, granting even more juicy blog material for the next several years.
As for front-loading evolution, yes, I would indeed rather write about this. As you shall see.
Comment by MikeGene — January 16, 2006 @ 1:02 am
January 16th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Benji,
Front-loading is the attempt to design the future by designing the present. It's relationship to ID is that evolution may have been used to carry out design objectives.
Comment by MikeGene — January 16, 2006 @ 1:07 am
January 16th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I must have missed something somewhere, but what is this about?
Comment by DonaldM — January 16, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
January 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
So, if evolution is front-loaded, it must of then had a front-loader. Is this tantamount to teleological evolution a la Simon Conway Morris?
Comment by Benji — January 16, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
January 16th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
It's related. Whereas Conway-Morris would place the direction in our natural laws, the front-loader hypothesises that it was at least partly encoded into organisms themselves (as well as possibly in natural laws).
Comment by Deuce — January 16, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
January 16th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
So, what you're saying is, natural laws are intelligent and see ahead in some sense or another. All this would be is, teleological evolution, not ID. ID begins with the search for specified complexity. How can such a task apply to the fossil record? I'm asking because I want to learn.
Comment by Benji — January 16, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
January 17th, 2006 at 12:48 am
MikeGene wrote:
"Dawkins is an increasingly interesting character. It's as if he has become bored with explaining evolution for the umpteenth time and animated about ridding the world of religion."
I don't think Dawkins has lost his enthusiasm for evolution. After all, he published a 673-page book (The Ancestor's Tale) in 2004. Reading the book, you clearly get the sense it was a labor of love.
Instead I think he feels an obligation to use his bully pulpit (as Britain's leading public intellectual, and one of the world's as well) to advocate against faith-based belief systems.
While I don't always agree with the tone or the efficacy of his methods, I do think the goal is noble.
Here's a link to a half-hour BBC radio interview with Dawkins on the subject of his television show: http://tinyurl.com/9wsug
Comment by keiths — January 17, 2006 @ 12:48 am
January 21st, 2006 at 11:29 am
1. DonaldM:
Consider this recent bit of news:
In order to build a new science lab at Dawkins's university, you have to put up razor wire around the construction site, the workers have to wear masks, and police officers must be present to protect the workers. The Professor for the Public Understanding of Science has not written one word about this, explaining to the public why such research is essential to the progress of science. He's been too busy peddling his anti-religious bigotry.
But perhaps we shouldn't expect Dawkins to defend science unless there is an anti-religious angle to it. After all, if you go to the Science Blogs, see if you can find someone who is upset about this attack on science.
Comment by MikeGene — January 21, 2006 @ 11:29 am
January 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Well, well, for once I agree with Dawkins. Almost. Of course desire for retribution is only experienced by the animal man, and of course it is difficult to overcome, and of course it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, and of course the church's teachings on the satisfaction of God's justice via the death of Jesus is an abomination and a capitulation to animalistic and ancient tribal feelings, the very sort of interpretation that Jesus tried to lead people away from, but he failed.
Comment by onething — January 26, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
onething,
"Retribution" is God's. As in, "'Vengeance is Mine. I will repay', says the Lord". Retribution, by MAN, is "antithetical to the teachings of Jesus", but JUSTICE is and always was part of God's character and nature – and Jesus SATISFIED God's justice on the cross. That's how God can JUSTLY forgive those who accept Jesus as their Savior, as the One Who suffered in their place. Sin deserves punishment, onething – it's part of justice. God is a God of justice and judgment, but also of mercy, and through Jesus "mercy triumphs over judgment". The entire concept is taught all throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and Jesus clearly claimed that His death would be a sacrificial atonement for the sins of mankind. You are absolutely and unreasonably wrong in thinking Jesus did not teach "the satisfaction of God's justice" via His death – in fact, to even make such a claim would seem to indicate the individual making the claim had not read even one of the four Gospels.
(My apologies for the sermon, but when falsehoods regarding the truths in the Bible are freely proferred, I must likewise respond to point out that the falsehoods, and to correct them.)
Comment by Douglas — January 26, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
"..to point out the falsehoods…"
Comment by Douglas — January 26, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Douglas,
The reason I address this topic on occasion, is because there is a disconnect between Christians and those who consider religion evil. Just as the Darwinists are not listening to IDists, so Christians are not listening to the reasons given by the atheists why they are allergic to religion.
Yes, I realize that many times in the Bible, esp. the Old Testament, we find that Jehovah is a man of war, is jealous, has wrath, has fierce anger, takes vengeance, and commands his followers to commit murder, rape, and infanticide, take slaves, sell daughters, and to have no mercy.
Look at the pernicious lies you have been induced to swallow. Is God a house divided? Are we to learn to be above vengeance and admire a God who takes vengeance?
Please explain to me how purity mixes with wrath.
How love punishes eternally while remembering no wrongs.
How to take vengeance while working no ill.
How to be unvariable yet jealous and provoked to anger.
How to be not provoked yet provoked.
Why he blesses peacemakers and calls himself a man of war.
Why Jesus says the law of eye for eye is not God's way, and then the church teaches that God demanded a death to pay for Adam's sin.
If God took payment, what does it mean to forgive?
But let's see, if I had to choose between the God I know and a multitude of thousands year old scriptures from a people who went through many stages and were written almost in the stone age, and who obviously believed in many different things throughout, I'd say that the scriptures have a problem.
Comment by onething — January 27, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Onething,
If I may interject, this article explains the whole Amalekite issue, on a scholarly level.
Of course the above — as researched and thorough as it is — like any other evidence about anything else, will only satisfy one who is honestly wants answers to such difficulties. And you may want to consciously consider that words like,
is obviously suggestive that you're not considering the issue with an open-mind.
Just for what it's worth.
Dane
Comment by Dane Parker — January 27, 2006 @ 9:45 pm